The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Nice to see a commissioning shot off of all the 45's so far - after the uncertainty of initial testing, it's good to see everything apparently working fine.

Agreed, and paired with the French (I'm fairly sure it was them) test against a supersonic (again, i'm fairly sure I read it was sea-skimming, but not 100%) target means that the question "can it do the job?" is answered.

Once I see a few CAMM's hitting targets, i'll be a bit more happy

 

[Tomcat231]

Agreed, and paired with the French (I'm fairly sure it was them) test against a supersonic (again, i'm fairly sure I read it was sea-skimming, but not 100%) target means that the question "can it do the job?" is answered.

Once I see a few CAMM's hitting targets, i'll be a bit more happy

Don't think it was supersonic. Forboin and Paul launched against GQM-163 off the coast of Levant in April. Coyote is only supersonic drone I know of, and dont think Brits were there.

Looks like they were off Scotland.

 

[RobWilliams]

Don't think it was supersonic. Forboin and Paul launched against GQM-163 off the coast of Levant in April. Coyote is only supersonic drone I know of, and dont think Brits were there.

Looks like they were off Scotland.

That's what I mean, this test paired with the successful French test ( very brief article here PAAMS intercepts sea-skimming supersonic target - Jane's Navy International )

Nowhere did I say that Dragons test was supersonic, nor that it was sea skimming, what I did say was that it was the French test that matched that criteria.

 

[StobieWan]

That's what I mean, this test paired with the successful French test ( very brief article here PAAMS intercepts sea-skimming supersonic target - Jane's Navy International )

Nowhere did I say that Dragons test was supersonic, nor that it was sea skimming, what I did say was that it was the French test that matched that criteria.

Yeah - one test against a sea skimming simulator and one previously vs an IRBM simulator back in 2011/2010 - might shut up at least one bloke on another board who's been arguing til he's blue in the face that Aster can't intercept supersonic targets at all

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah - one test against a sea skimming simulator and one previously vs an IRBM simulator back in 2011/2010 - might shut up at least one bloke on another board who's been arguing til he's blue in the face that Aster can't intercept supersonic targets at all

Well those kinds of people would disregard any sort of evidence that doesn't back them up so don't bet on it or, they'll find something else to complain about.

I do wish they'd release a bit more (or at least, make a few more decisions) about the T26

 

[StobieWan]

Well those kinds of people would disregard any sort of evidence that doesn't back them up so don't bet on it or, they'll find something else to complain about.

I do wish they'd release a bit more (or at least, make a few more decisions) about the T26

Damn straight - I'd love to know more about 26 for sure - they should be cutting steel in two or three years for heavens sake...

 

[RobWilliams]

Damn straight - I'd love to know more about 26 for sure - they should be cutting steel in two or three years for heavens sake...

The one thing i'd REALLY like to know is what they're doing for the main missile silo. To be honest, whilst I was always determined to believe they would pick the A70, now i'm not so sure.

Turns out, Perseus is due to be compatible with the Mk41 AND A70, so could there be a potential for the government to think "sod it, Tomahawks already work in the Mk41 + Perseus in the future (if we want it can too)"?

Or would they stick with the A70 to make it logistically nice as then all the VLS are all Sylver?

 

[1805]

Has anyone got any information on the range of the current Sea King AEW radar and how this compares with Sampson's quoted 400km. Could Sampson form the basis of a CVF borne AEW radar?

 

[StobieWan]

The one thing i'd REALLY like to know is what they're doing for the main missile silo. To be honest, whilst I was always determined to believe they would pick the A70, now i'm not so sure.

Turns out, Perseus is due to be compatible with the Mk41 AND A70, so could there be a potential for the government to think "sod it, Tomahawks already work in the Mk41 + Perseus in the future (if we want it can too)"?

Or would they stick with the A70 to make it logistically nice as then all the VLS are all Sylver?

I'd have thought specifying Sylver would be simpler in terms of logistics and it allows you to fit type 26 out with Aster 15 and 30 plus anything else that MBDA come out with. There's always the slender possibility of a follow on AWD variant of Type 26 in the same style as the FREDA's. From an export point of view, I'm sure Type 26 will be offered with both types of silo as an option but the DCNS kit will likely get the nod in RN service.

 

[RobWilliams]

I'd have thought specifying Sylver would be simpler in terms of logistics and it allows you to fit type 26 out with Aster 15 and 30 plus anything else that MBDA come out with. There's always the slender possibility of a follow on AWD variant of Type 26 in the same style as the FREDA's. From an export point of view, I'm sure Type 26 will be offered with both types of silo as an option but the DCNS kit will likely get the nod in RN service.

Ah yeah, I do recall reading somewhere that the MOD was offering a T-26 AAW variant only for export, but don't quote me on that!

That all makes sense, IIRC MBDA announced some future concept VL UAV systems at Farnborough so that's definitely something to consider, if they decide FireShadow comes to nothing

The MN SCALP-Naval's done it's first "full" successful test firing a few days ago, which is another angle we could go rather than intergrate Tomahawk if we wanted

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

 

[1805]

Ah yeah, I do recall reading somewhere that the MOD was offering a T-26 AAW variant only for export, but don't quote me on that!

That all makes sense, IIRC MBDA announced some future concept VL UAV systems at Farnborough so that's definitely something to consider, if they decide FireShadow comes to nothing

The MN SCALP-Naval's done it's first "full" successful test firing a few days ago, which is another angle we could go rather than intergrate Tomahawk if we wanted

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

Should the RN be considering other launcher solutions than the current US/French options, for at least some of the weapons fit. This could be a UK developed VLS (unlikely agreed, but could it offer innovations over the current established systems ....maybe something related to CAMM double deck packing (8x) in the longer format silos or the ability to reload at sea?), or alternatively is VLS the optimum solution for non-SAM.

The characteristics of VLS do suit the requirements of SAMs, instant availability/no downtime while reloading, although the same could be said for some containerized systems (e.g. RAM). They also have less impact on the ship design/stealthy and with US and now French systems provide huge interchangeably of weapon; although again this was available on some older concepts (e.g. Mk 13).

Why not quad pack CAMM in dispersed A35 2-3 (x4) 24-32 missiles, and a reloadable systems fed from a flexideck. There is no particular need for high rate of fire or instant availability of the entire magazine of cruise missiles.

 

[StobieWan]

Last images of the Type 26 showed two rows of dedicated CAMM silos, probably pulled through from decommissioned Type 23, with what were presumed to be strike length cells aft of that. There was also some fierce debate about the appearance of a set of silos in the same block as the uptakes but I was a bit more dubious about that.

VLS brings some flexibility in loadout, I don't think there's any need to look at reloads at sea, since the USN already trialled that and found it operationally very difficult, even with their larger Tico class.

 

[swerve]

Why not quad pack CAMM in dispersed A35 2-3 (x4) 24-32 missiles, and a reloadable systems fed from a flexideck. There is no particular need for high rate of fire or instant availability of the entire magazine of cruise missiles.

IIRC, the Sylver A35 has facilities CAMM doesn't need (due to its launch method), to enable it to launch other missiles. This makes it bulkier & more expensive than a dedicated CAMM silo. Except for CAMM, every VLS-compatible missile the UK will use in the future (e.g. Aster 15) is too big for A35.

There is an argument for quad-packing CAMM in bigger Sylver silos, e.g. A50, which can also be used for larger missiles such as Aster 30, but that argument does not apply to A35.

If a navy has already bought A35 for other missiles, & decides to replace or supplement them with CAMM, then quad-packing it in A35 would be logical. But that does not apply to the RN.

The space & weight needed for an on-board reloading system would probably be more than it's worth. Where they were fitted, on-board VLS reloaders have been removed from ships, & none have been fitted for many years.

Reloading from a magazine needs space not only for the magazine, but also the handling equipment, & room to move the missiles & for the reloader to operate. One can fit more ready to use missiles in less space, with less weight. The only argument in favour is the distribution of weight & space, & that can be worked round by sensible design.

 

[swerve]

Has anyone got any information on the range of the current Sea King AEW radar and how this compares with Sampson's quoted 400km. Could Sampson form the basis of a CVF borne AEW radar?

Sampson is much too big & heavy for helicopters. It'd need to be a greatly cut-down version. Too much power needed, as well.

I can imagine a heliborne AEW radar using the S-band T/R modules of Sampson, rather than the X-band TRMs of fighter radars (S-band is used by Erieye, BTW), but I don't think it'd owe very much to Sampson apart from that.

I think one could develop an AEW radar based on Sampson for land-based aircraft.

 

[1805]

IIRC, the Sylver A35 has facilities CAMM doesn't need (due to its launch method), to enable it to launch other missiles. This makes it bulkier & more expensive than a dedicated CAMM silo. Except for CAMM, every VLS-compatible missile the UK will use in the future (e.g. Aster 15) is too big for A35.

There is an argument for quad-packing CAMM in bigger Sylver silos, e.g. A50, which can also be used for larger missiles such as Aster 30, but that argument does not apply to A35.

If a navy has already bought A35 for other missiles, & decides to replace or supplement them with CAMM, then quad-packing it in A35 would be logical. But that does not apply to the RN.

The space & weight needed for an on-board reloading system would probably be more than it's worth. Where they were fitted, on-board VLS reloaders have been removed from ships, & none have been fitted for many years.

Reloading from a magazine needs space not only for the magazine, but also the handling equipment, & room to move the missiles & for the reloader to operate. One can fit more ready to use missiles in less space, with less weight. The only argument in favour is the distribution of weight & space, & that can be worked round by sensible design.

I only suggested A35 as it has a 4 ceil launcher, it does sound likely that CAMM might have it's own VLS silos, although I would hope it can also be quad packed into both US/French VLS, for both operational flexibility and any chance at exports potential.

There may not be much value in having a reloadable strike length VLS, but I can certainly see value in a reloadable launch system for cruise missiles. For a ship to have to leave station because it has fired of some/maybe not all missiles (what would be critial mass), is a limitation, particularly if you do not have the numbers of ships the USN has. A VLS can provide flexibility in what missiles are pre loaded in port; sealed containers on a flexideck could extend this to any items...vehicles/relief aid/support facilities. I also wonder if in the future we could see missiles with changeable warheads/payloads for different roles; I could see this being useful on a SSN were reloadable launch systems already exist....torpedo tubes ;-)

 

[exPrivate]

I know the Sun is a very special newspaper, but I am speechless. It goes far beyond my imagination.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...rn-on-new-aircraft-carrier-designs.html:flame

 

[RobWilliams]

I know the Sun is a very special newspaper, but I am speechless. It goes far beyond my imagination.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...rn-on-new-aircraft-carrier-designs.html:flame

The whole "Uh-oh, looks like the Americans might have to hack off the B variant so we'll be screwed" argument isn't anything particularly new and has been being thrown around in regards to the CVF for donkeys years.

The British Gov./MOD/RN have probably discussed this in very great detail with the US and you'd have thought - if the worries were credible - this would have already been taken into account.

Underlined by the fact that, it's the Sun.

 

[Repulse]

The whole "Uh-oh, looks like the Americans might have to hack off the B variant so we'll be screwed" argument isn't anything particularly new and has been being thrown around in regards to the CVF for donkeys years.

The British Gov./MOD/RN have probably discussed this in very great detail with the US and you'd have thought - if the worries were credible - this would have already been taken into account.

Underlined by the fact that, it's the Sun.

There was equally a "plan B" talked about at the point when it looked like the US would not share the F35 source code etc. Not sure what it was, but hopefully it wasn't cats n flaps...

 

[spsun100001]

A couple of questions

Does anyone know the planned future composition of the RFA?

Pre the last round of cuts I think it was:

4 Bay class
1 Diligence
1 Argus
2 Wave
2 Fort Victoria
2 Fort Rosalie
2 Leaf
2 Rover

If I understand correctly we will be ordering 4 MARS vessels. Is the future fleet:

3 Bay class
1 Diligenence
1 Argus
2 Wave
4 MARS

The second question concerns the Type 26. If I understand correctly of the 13 ships planned 8 will be fitted with the 2087 towed sonar brought across from the Type 23 and 5 will not have this capability.

What is the cost of the actual sonar set as opposed to fitting the ship with the capability to carry the sonar?

What I'm getting at is that with only 8 ships towed array capable then refit/maintenance cycles probably mean that only 5/6 ships will be available with the capability at one time. If all ships were fitted with the equipment to take the 2087 then the 8 sonar sets could always be deployed with active units.

I guess if most of the cost is associated with fitting the capability to the ships then it's a non starter but is most of the cost was in the sonar set itself then it might make sense to equip all 13 ships to carry the 2087 even though there aren't enough sets to go around just to ensure that all of your sets were on active deployment.

 

[Repulse]

psun100001: My understanding is that the RFA will also get 3 dry store replenishment ships to replace the Forts. Originally, they we also going to get 2 JSS 's, as well to replace Argus and probably Diligence. The latter 2 seem to have been kicked into the long grass and perhaps the role of the dry store ships will be extended.


In reference to buying 2087 Sonars for all T26s, my answer would be "why?". We are no longer protecting the Atlantic from hordes of soviet subs, 8 should be sufficient to cover UK waters and protect a task group. The question should be why build 5 GP versions at all? The approx 1.5bn would buy a lot of GP capability off the shelf.